LesiU, MaXyM, you're not improving the quality of any mod, you're looking to remove mods (when we were talking about conversions) or features (like HDR profiles) in their entirety. Looking for higher quality mods is generally a fine goal. With the removal of mods or features you're not adding any higher quality mods, you're just getting rid of those not meeting your, once again: subjective, quality standards. That's like trying to improve the mean income in a society by murdering anyone below it. You're not actually improving anyone's mean income/any mod's quality, you're just removing the less fortune ones. Hence why I suggested writing a tutorial instead of a rant to the developers on they, from your perspective, messed up. Tell me how to properly set up my HDR profiles. Tell me when I should use HDR profiles. Actually use your superior knowledge about the issue to help people build better tracks instead of just ranting at others. Come on, be productive and actually help improve the quality of I've got a track that is around 50% surrounded by mountains, at an altitude of 580 meters. So far I was just going to keep the default HDR profile and not fiddle with it. Suggestions on how I could use HDR profiles to make the track fit its location more?
Ethone, I think you completly missing the point If I tell you how to set up HDR profile to the best, will that profile be used by ANY track creator? No. Point is, that any track creator will create own profile, making virtual world looks different than on other tracks (including changes in car appearance) It looks like you don't know what HDR is intended to be used for. HDR is not a way to set lighting scene properties. HDR should react on given amount of light simulating eyes/brain reaction on it (means ability to view some details under (changable) lighting contidions). If you go from one location to another IRL - your eyes work the same way. That's why HDR shouldn't be touched - should be the same for each track (and I say, with possibility to change HDR profile for all tracks at once, to satisfy any user taste) BTW: I've never said that, neither Lesiu
@Ethone How, by removing HDR profiles I am "murdering" anyone to improve mean income? OK, let's stay with your example. Actually, I am helping those "less fortunate" allowing them to follow only the right way (and by so, having a chance to improve the mean income). With HDR profiles tweakable, it's like letting them to choose... but that also mean they can choose the wrong way (so, allowing to those "less fortunate" to make wrong decisions and by that, actually increasing the chance of decreasing the mean income). You might ask, why I'm the one to choose, which way is the right way? I expect ISI will decide about that. What we should do, is to help them with making decisions, so once they set things up, we all will be having benefits from that (the mean income will rise). People will do poor textures and very low poly objects... we can't skip that. But at least they won't be able to set lighting properties in wrong way. It's like not allowing people to have gun, because they would kill each other Don't ask me about how to set up hdr profiles. I'm not the one who let people set things without giving any advice, which way to follow. Ask ISI. But again, ISI already said, that setting up HDR profiles is up to a modders taste. So who will write that tutorial? Maybe you, as "keep hdr profiles tweakable" idea defender? And just to make something clear - I'm not after changing in general, what rFactor is. But there are some things which, if you allow them to be freely modified, can make things worse. Track lighting is not car's physics. F*ck up physics - they won't affect other mods or tracks. Do track lighting wrong and it will affect ALL mods. Of course you might not be aware your lighting settings are wrong. You might think, it looks great. And someone doing mod with cars will believe you and take your track as the base to set up his cars shader properties. His cars will look great on your track... but on other tracks (which, let's say, have lighting setup better) those cars won't be looking that good. Again, like with example Feels showed. So, does Megane have too intensive lights or too weak? How can you tell? How do you know, which way to go? And it's like that in rFactor 1. People are complaining that rF 2 (with ISI tracks and cars) looks bad. People want Shift2/pCARS quality... but we won't achieve that quality until people will know how to set up things properly. And when I see people saying to Feels when they look at Croft screens "oh, your windows look great! I don't see any issues with them"... Again, yes, if there were in-depth tutorials covering all important parameters then maybe there could be some consistency but there aren't any at the moment and I didn't see any mention about writing them in the near future. As Maxym just said - having HDR tweakable via a slider in game options, that will affect all content at once just for you is OK.
I know why there are hdr profiles. Because you peeps get never satisfied. Thats why ISI let you do your own world. Think about it. ISI set's a standard. All tracks get made with it. Then they change it because you constantly moaning that it is not right and when they press the button of that hdr update you begin to say that now all the mods look horrible... Same will happen when they fit in all those new fresnel shaders you want. I guess then the party starts with people releasing tracks where shaders are used for everything in a wrong way and the physics become horrible because everyone wants to place shaders everywhere...hehe So... you might want to re-think that part!? Quality work will always stay out on top. If there is one hdr or two or three...
I understand any end-user wants to tune up things to match own taste. So, give possibility to set up hdr profiles to user, for whole game at once, and force creators to prepare tracks matching some given standard. After that anyone will be satisfied, and at least in this area nothing will be screwed up by design. Being fair, shaders should be put everywhere indeed (even for matte material). Because that's how light works IRL. There should be just single one complex shader being able to work with diffuse, specular, normalmap and env reflection applying well know rules like Fresnel one - it is enough. In games things are simplified due to performance. Additionally modders often ignore more complex things, or just don't see things from real world because those are just common to them. That's why they think that diffuse shader is enough in most cases. And to be honest, I also was ignoring a lot of phenomena yet 2 years ago. Through the last 2 years I learned about how light works, what happens in specific situations. Why best line reflecting light more than other part of track, why dusk-red-sky turns into blue again instead of black, etc etc.
I give up guys. Even when you have a case to be made for your issue you just go around ranting about it. You're not helping anyone. You're not trying to convince any modder to follow your SUBJECTIVE standards of quality. You're just pissing around, expecting everyone to instantly see the light and share your point your view. You're not speaking for every modder, but you're asking for stuff that affects every modder. What the hell guys? How do you expect to improve the community or mod quality with your behaviour?
Which is a great achievement and I really hope that everyone will get this moment in their life. Where they really get intouch with mother nature and begin to see how wonderful it is. But again, you can make so much wrong with the present possibilities, I don't think it is a problem when there is one more. The best will stay on top and get's into hall-of-fame.
It's not going about subjective standard but objective. In the real world some things like lighting and shadows are working in the same way for every place on earth. It's as if you wanted to have a separate physics and tire model for each track. I am very surprised that a good ideas that can help to create better graphics are so badly received by the community.
Once more you're implying that I said something, which I didn't. So, again - I have never, in any of my posts in this thread, tried to force people to use my "subjective standards of quality". I'm only asking ISI to come up with some standards (THEIR standards, as objective as possible) that we will be somewhat forced to use in our tracks. Sorry mate, but if you still don't get that, then I don't know how to explain any better.
